The development of methodology of teaching foreign languages in the usa

THE DEVELOPMENT OF METHODOLOGY OF TEACHING FOREIGN LANGUAGES ​​IN THE USA

Annotation:

This article will address the following issue related to the methodology of teaching foreign languages ​​in high schools and colleges in the United States: the role of structural linguistics in the development of the methodology (in the USA, instead of the term “structural linguistics”, synonyms “descriptive linguistics” and “scientific linguistics” are often used in this work).

Key words:

Structuralists, descriptivists, teaching, conservatives, foreign language, methodology

Structural linguistics has a great influence on the methodology of teaching foreign languages ​​in the United States. Structural linguistics plays a dominant role in efforts to improve foreign language teaching in the United States. Therefore, it will be appropriate here to give a brief historical outline of the development of structuralism in the teaching of foreign languages ​​in the United States.

For the first time, Leonard Bloomfield made a substantiated presentation of the principles of descriptivism in the teaching of foreign languages ​​in his work Language, published in 1933 and devoted to questions of general linguistics. Bloomfield's structural principles were further developed in 1941, when the American Council of Scientific Societies began to develop an intensive language study program. Within the framework of this program, linguists gave a description of languages ​​for teaching which there were still no training materials that met the advanced requirements, and began to develop a methodology for teaching these languages. Intensive language courses have been introduced at a number of universities. Two works are the Outline Guide for the Practical Study of Foreign Languages ​​by Leonard Bloomfield and the Outline of Linguistic Analysis by Bernard Blok and J.L. Traders - served at that time as the main guide for descriptive vists. When the Second World War ended, there was a need for practical mastering foreign languages ​​by large groups of people. To meet this need, a number of American universities have organized various intensive language training courses for the military. Some of these courses were organized under the guidance of structuralists, who applied the achievements of the intensive language study program. Other courses were organized by supporters of a more traditional methodology of teaching foreign languages. Be that as it may, the structural courses created during the war represented the first experience of the practical application of descriptive methods on a large scale. The influence of these courses was felt after the war. The positions of de-scriptwriters have also strengthened in connection with the recent renewal of government subsidies in the interest of developing the study of foreign languages. The US Department of Education supports the structural direction in teaching foreign languages. For example, the department of foreign languages ​​of the ministry supported the experimental work on the use of structural linguistics in teaching foreign languages ​​and recommended the introduction of the achievements of this linguistics in the educational process at the so-called summer courses1 in foreign languages ​​subsidized by the government, as well as in regional language learning centers.

The use of the structural method is also strongly encouraged by the leaders of the Association of Teachers of New Languages. This Association is the largest nationwide organization of university teachers of English and foreign languages ​​in the United States. In 1952, she developed a program to improve the quality of teaching foreign languages ​​in the United States. In a 1956 policy statement, the executive committee indicated that it adheres to a descriptive approach and demands that first place in the initial stage of teaching a foreign language (with any version of the program) is spoken, not reading. Supporting a descriptive approach to teaching a foreign language by such influential organizations as the US Department of Education, the American Council of Scientific Societies, the Association of Teachers of New Languages ​​and the American Linguistic Society, in no way means that most foreign language teachers in the United States are unanimous in their views. The former secretary of the Association of Teachers of New Languages ​​found that there are 260 structuralist linguists in the United States, while 26,000 are foreign language teachers. A statement follows that there are deep contradictions between structuralists and traditional methods in the United States:

“It goes without saying that if these 260 structuralists can teach 26,000 teachers of a foreign language something (and this is quite obvious), then they are unlikely to achieve their goal by ignoring the latter or enmity with them, just like 26,000 the teachers will not help if they think that it is impossible to enlighten them. ”

Before we can fully understand the essence of the contradictions between descriptive and conservative schools, we must consider the principles of teaching foreign languages ​​that descriptivists advocate.

As already noted, these principles were first set forth by Bloomfield back in 1933. In subsequent years, they were again repeatedly nominated and received further development. In this article, we will describe the essence of the many provisions regarding the methodology of teaching foreign languages ​​that have been put forward by structuralists.

First of all, from the point of view of descriptivists, language is an oral system. Therefore, structuralists require intensive work on pronunciation at the initial stage with any program for teaching a foreign language and careful work on pronunciation in the future. The traditional letter system should not, as a rule, be introduced until students have fully mastered the sound system of the language.

Conclusions are allowed only in those cases when the letter system of a foreign language exactly matches its sound system, as for example in Spanish or Hungarian). During the work on the sound system, it is necessary to use phonetic transcription, or you should not resort to writing at all. Spoken forms of the language should be introduced so that they are free from those distortions that are usually created by the traditional letter system. For the creation of students' skills in oral speech (in terms of understanding and speaking), oral laboratories are essential.

Structuralists attach great importance to intensive oral training exercises (drill) with such a number of repetitions, which provides memorization by heart. The need for a system of oral training exercises was most eloquently expressed by Bloomfield. We give here his statement in full:

“Language proficiency is not a matter of knowledge: people who speak their native language are not able to describe the mechanisms that underlie it. Language proficiency is a matter of practice. You can learn which notes correspond to certain piano keys, you can memorize the notes and chords that make up a piece of music, but at the same time you cannot be able to play it on the piano, because this requires a lot of practice. The same can be said of language. It is useful to know the mechanisms of the language, but this knowledge will not be of any value until you start practicing the use of forms of this language, until you develop the ability to freely and fluently reproduce them. Understanding the form is only the first step. Rewrite these forms, read them out loud, teach them by heart, and then train them again and again, every day, until they become completely natural and familiar. Learning a language is practice and practice again; everything else is useless. ”

Descriptivists believe that there should be a lot of exercises, that they should be varied, and that each exercise should be aimed at working out only one language phenomenon. Overuse of translation should be avoided. Vocabulary and syntactic constructions need to be systematically repeated and re-worked. The dictionary should not be too large and should be studied in context, and not in isolation. Linguists recommend studying the language in the form in which it is currently used in oral speech. Historical facts should not interfere with the descriptive approach to language. Grammar explanations must be preceded by numerous examples so that the student can draw the rule himself. The structure of the studied foreign language should, if necessary, be compared with the structure of the native language. Definitions of categories should be given on the basis of form and syntactic function, and not on the basis of vague philosophical concepts. Grammar rules should be clear and as simple as possible.

Bibliography:

1. John Macalister “Speed reading courses and their effect on reading authentic texts: A preliminary investigation”. Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.2010

2. Hu M., & Nation, I.S.P. “ Reading in a foreign language”. 2000

3. Nation, I.S.P. “Teaching ESL/EFL reading and writing. New York and London: Routledge. 2009

4. Bell, T. “Reading matrix”. 2001

5. Iwahori, Y. ”Reading in a foreign language”. 2008

6. Taguchi, E., Takayasu-Maass, M.,& Gorsuch, G.J. “ Reading in a foreign language”. 2004